Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Candler

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

October 30, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff,
v.
KALVIN CANDLER Defendant.

          ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS [Doc. 30]; ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [Doc. 28] AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS [Doc. 18]

          Victoria A. Roberts United States District Judge.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Kalvin Candler (“Candler”) filed a Motion to Suppress Statements that he says were involuntarily elicited from him in violation of Miranda and the Fifth Amendment. Magistrate Judge Steven Whalen issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&”R) recommending that Candler's Motion be DENIED. Candler timely objected; these objections are fully briefed.

         For the following reasons, the Court OVERRULES Candler's objections, ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Whalen's R&R and DENIES Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements.

         II. FACTS

         Detroit Police officers stopped Candler at a BP Gas Station for expired tabs. They then arrested him for carrying a concealed weapon without a permit and for being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was taken to the Detroit Detention Center (“DDC”). At the DDC, Candler informed the staff he was epileptic and needed medication to prevent seizures.

         The next morning, a Michigan Department of Correction (“MDOC”) officer took Candler from his cell to meet Officers Dyer and Lawton at the Control Desk of Building 500 at the DDC. Dyer and Lawton then transported Candler a short distance to an interrogation room. During this walk, Dyer asked Candler if he knew why he was arrested. Candler replied that it was because he had a gun. Candler was not advised of his constitutional rights at this time.

         Later, Dyer provided Candler a form containing Miranda rights. Dyer thoroughly advised Candler of his rights, ensuring he understood each right by having him initial them.

         After advising Candler of his rights, Dyer asked Candler a series of questions regarding the gun and to whom it belonged. Dyer wrote the information on a form. Candler reviewed it for mistakes upon conclusion of the interrogation.

         III. DISCUSSION

         Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3), a district judge is required to determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation that has been properly objected to. See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Cole v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 105 F.Supp.3d 738, 741 (E.D. Mich. 2015). De novo review requires the Court to re-examine all relevant evidence previously reviewed by the magistrate judge to determine whether the recommendations should be accepted, rejected, or modified. Cole v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 105 F.Supp.3d 738, 741 (E.D. Mich. 2015); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Only those objections that are specific are entitled to de novo review. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986).

         Candler sets forth two specific objections to the R&R.

         Objection #1: Candler says the Magistrate Judge erred in finding that the Seibert factors weighed in favor of admitting his Mirandized statement.

         The Magistrate Judge concluded that Candler's pre-Mirandized statement made to Dyer in response to Dyer's question during the walk from the Control Desk to the interrogation ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.